Saturday, August 04, 2012

John Drane's unacknowledged use of my work in Introducing the New Testament

Regular readers will know that I like to check up on the treatment of the Synoptic Problem in the introductory New Testament textbooks. As a student of the Synoptic Problem myself, I am always fascinated to see how the topic is getting taught to undergraduate students. I do have a dog in the fight in that I have argued in books, websites, podcasts, articles and so on for a particular solution, the Farrer Theory, which affirms the Priority of Mark's Gospel but dispenses with Q by suggesting that Luke knows Matthew as well as Mark.

Some New Testament introductions ignore the Farrer Theory; others provide minimal, weak or flawed coverage. Somehow, I had never thought to check, until recently, on the coverage in one of the most popular New Testament Introductions of all, John Drane's Introducing the New Testament, now in its third edition at Fortress. As well as checking out the third edition, I found out that I already owned the second edition courtesy of Logos Bible Software. The story of what I found is an interesting one.*

Drane's coverage of the Synoptic Problem broadly supports the Two-Source Theory but has an extra section entitled "New light on old problems", the first subheading of which is "Did Q really exist?" (177-8). As I read through this section, I thought to myself, "This looks familiar." In fact, it was very familiar. The section is derived from a web page that I composed back in 1997 called Ten Reasons to Question Q. Although the section in Drane's book is derived from my web page, it does not mention me and it does not cite the web page.

Drane appears to work in sequence through my ten points, abbreviating and paraphrasing, sometimes adding some extra material. He begins:

There is no hard evidence of its existence. In spite of the confidence with which scholars have reconstructed Q, and even claim to be able to give an account of its own literary history and development, no one has ever seen it. There is not even a fragment of any ancient manuscript ofQ, nor is there a single reference to its existence anywhere in ancient literature. Nineteenth-century scholars believed thatPapias was referring to Q in his statement that Matthew ‘compiled the logia in the Hebrew language' . . . . (184)

This is a version of my points 1 and 2:

1. No-one has ever seen Q
Current literature on Q abounds with editions of Q, investigations into its strata, studies of the communities that were behind it and analyses of their theology. In such circumstances, it is worth allowing ourselves the sober reminder that there is nomanuscript of Q in existence. No-one has yet found even a fragment ofQ.

2. No-one had ever heard of Q
No ancient author appears to have been aware of the existence of Q. One will search in vain for a single reference to it in ancient literature. For a while it was thought that 'the logia' to which Papiasreferred might be Q. Indeed, this was one of the planks on which the Q hypothesis rested in the nineteenth century. But no reputable scholar now believes this.

Drane's next bullet point begins as follows:

There are no other ancient documents that look like Q. Though some Gnostic gospels (especially the Gospel of Thomas) providea kind of parallel for interest in collecting sayings of Jesus, and though such interest seems inherently likely among his followers, Q is not actually like Thomas in that it contains some narrative material as well. It is therefore difficult to identify a specific genre to which Q might belong (184-5).

This appears to be based on my point 3**

3. Q is unparalleled in genreThere is noancient documentthat looks like Q. Some have claimed that the Gospel of Thomasprovides an analogy since it, like Q, is a 'sayings Gospel'. However, there is no parallel in Thomas for the narrative material that has always been problematic for the Q hypothesis, the Temptation (Matt. 4.1-11 // Luke 4.1-13), the Centurion's Boy (Matt. 8.5-13 // Luke 7.1-11) and the Messengers from John (Matt. 11.2-19 // Luke 7.18-35). Some Q scholars, aware of this difficulty, are currently engaging in a desperate search for a genre for Q.

Drane's third bullet point reads:

In a considerable number of passages, Matthew’s andLuke’s texts agree over against Mark’s, in either wording or order. This can generally be explained by the assumption that, at some points, there was overlap between Mark and Q, and that Matthew and Luke preferred the fuller version generally believed to be contained in Q. However, some of these agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are found in the story of Jesus’ death (compare, for example, Matthew 26:67–68 / Luke 22:63–64 with Mark 14:65), and since every account of the scope of the hypothetical Q has concluded that it did not contain a passion narrative, some scholars want to argue that this phenomenon can more easily be explained on the assumption that Luke used Matthew than by reference to the traditional view that both of them used Q (185).

This is a condensed summary of my points 4-7. I will not quote those in full here but will draw attention to some pertinent elements:

But the existence of agreements between MatthewandLukeagainst Mark in these very passages suggests otherwise . . . .

Since the Q hypothesis is founded on Luke's independence of Matthew, agreement like this, agreement against Markin both wording and order, should not be present. But the force of such major agreements tends not to be felt because of appeal to the phenomenon of 'Mark-Qoverlap', both here and elsewhere (e.g. the Temptation; John the Baptist; Beelzebub) . . . .

If one were to find a Minor Agreement between Matthew and Lukein the Passion narrative (Matt. 26-28 // Mark 14-16 // Luke 22-24), then this would be stronger evidence still against the existence of Q, for no-one thinks that Q has a Passion Narrative. The good news is that there are several Minor Agreements in this material, the most striking of which is this: Matt. 26.67-8 // Mark 14.65 // Luke 22.63-4

Given the condensing of my points here, there are fewer verbal links in Drane's paraphrase. However, there is a tell-tale sign of "editorial fatigue" in that Drane begins by writing "the story of Jesus' death", presumably with his introductory audience in mind, but he subsequently drifts into my wording "a passion narrative" later in the paragraph.

Speaking of fatigue, Drane's fourth bullet point (the final one in the second edition, 185, penultimate in the 3rd, 179) begins by paraphrasing my point 8 ("The Phenomenon of Fatigue"):

The existence of Q has also been questioned on the basis of considerations related to the way in which ancient authors might have operated. It has been claimed that when a writer is using a source, while the information might be sharpened up and reshaped at the beginning of the day, as tiredness sinks in there will be a tendency to revert to the underlying patterns of whatever source is being used—and that in the case of the so-called Q material, such evidence always shows Luke reverting to Matthew’s forms of expression. For example, in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27) Matthew has three servants, and Lukehas ten. But as the story is told, Luke mentions ‘the first’, ‘the second’, and then ‘the other’ servant (19:16, 18, 20), which is easier to understand if LukeknewMatthew than if both of them were using the hypothetical Q.

This is how I had phrased this summary of my own argument:

When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account which are not sustained throughout - the writer lapses into docile reproduction of his / her source. This phenomenon of 'fatigue' is a tell-tale sign of a writer's dependence on a source . . . .

It is revealing that this phenomenon also occurs in double tradition (Q) material, and always in the same direction, in favour of Luke's use of Matthew. Take the Parable of the Talents / Pounds (Matt. 25.14-30 // Luke 19.11-27). Matthew has three servants throughout. Luke, on the other hand, has ten. But as the story progresses, we hear about 'the first' (19.16), 'the second' (19.18) and amazingly, 'the other' (ho heteros, Luke 19.20). Luke has inadvertently betrayed his knowledge of Matthew by drifting into the story-line of his source (see further my 'Fatigue in the Synoptics', NTS 44 (1998), pp. 45-58).

As in other places above, Drane uses synonyms where possible, "When a writer is using a source" for "when one writer is copying the work of another", "But as the story is told" for "But as the story progresses", "tiredness" for "fatigue", and so on. Curiously, this excerpt actually illustrates the phenomenon that it is describing, with the wording closer to my wording as the paragraph progresses.

The second half of Drane's fourth bullet-point reads:

Those who wish to dispose of Q also argue that the very notion of gospel writers using sources in this way is a legacy from a previous generation which adopted a ‘scissors and paste’ approach to literature, which can no longer be sustained—and if MandL as separate writtensources should be jettisoned, then so should Q.

This is a paraphrase of my penultimate point:

9. The Legacy of Scissors-and-Paste Scholarship
Q belongs to another age, an age in which scholars solved every problem by postulating another written source. The evangelists were thought of as 'scissors and paste' men, compilers and not composers, who edited together pieces from several documents. Classically, the bookish B. H. Streeter solved the synoptic problem by assigning a written source to each type of material - triple tradition was from Mark; double tradition was from 'Q'; special Matthew was from 'M' and special Luke was from 'L'. Most scholars have since dispensed with written 'M' and'L' sources. The time has now come to get up-to-date, and to dispense with Q too.

This is a good paraphrase, retaining the sense and structure of my point but rewording with things like "previous generation" for "another age". I must admit that I am not that keen on Drane's use of "dispose of" to replace"dispense with".

Drane's piece therefore paraphrases my "ten reasons to question Q" in order, with points 4-7 significantly condensed and point 10 omitted. The paraphrase is well done, with effective use of synonyms and generally good summaries of my points. There are words and phrases in common but overall the verbatim agreement is relatively limited.

It is difficult to know quite how to react to this. On one level, I am surprised that it has taken me until now to spot it given that the passage in question has been in the book since the second edition of 1999. I suppose that I am also pleasantly surprised to see my arguments repeated in a New Testament Introduction, even if it is without acknowledgement. At least some of the key Q sceptical arguments are getting a hearing in an introductory textbook.

Moreover, it would be fair to say also that the genre of introductory textbook does not tend to encourage citation in the same way that scholarly monographs and articles do. However, given the difficulty that we have in universities and colleges in training students to cite their sources, and to attribute arguments to those who made them, I think on balance that I am not happy with what the author has done here.

The basis of the plagiarism tutorials that we provide at Duke University are the imitation of good scholarly procedures, and that includes "failure to cite a source that is not common knowledge". One way to think about this is to imagine if a passage came in like this in a student's work in my New Testament Introduction class. What I would do would be to point out that the student has simply paraphrased a web page without citing the source. The student in question would be unlikely to get a good grade and would probably be referred to the plagiarism tutorials previously mentioned.

I would be interested to hear what others think. Am I being fair to Drane? Is it OK to use scholars' web pages without acknowledgement?

I should conclude by underlining that in this post I just want to sketch out the evidence and to ask the questions. I am not making any accusations. Nevertheless, I do have a suggestion for a moral for the future. If anyone is inclined to plagiarize scholarly work, it is probably not a good idea to plagiarize experts on source criticism.

----------
* Note: there are some slight expansions in the third edition including an extra bullet point (178) that is not derived from my web page. Most of the pages numbers above refer to the second edition.

** Note: Drane is writing in 1999 and so dependent on an earlier version of the website, and it is that earlier (1997) version of the site that I am here quoting. As it happens, this is one of the things that I first noticed when reading Drane -- I recognized the older wording of my site, wording that on this point I subsequently re-worded.

30 comments:

No acknowledgement is more extreme than minimal acknowledgement. It would be one thing for Drane to go along with standard introductory practice and cite you in the bibliography at the end of the chapter or punctuate his text by saying something like "Goodacre argues such-and-such." A comparison with similar level texts will reveal, I think, that Drane is in the wrong here. The two NT introductions I own (Carson/Morris/Moo, Achtemeier/Green/Thompson) do just that without the footnoting of more technical and specialized works. McGrath's intro to theology has minimal footnotes. But all of his quotations and paraphrases are properly attributed to their respective origins (a frustrating feature, I might add, for a graduate student trying to pinpoint the exact source of the quotation... exactly where in Anselm's writings did he say such-and such, Dr. McGrath?!). So I think you have a right to be upset with Drane. A scholar ought to err on the side of being hyper-vigilant and pedantic than negligent. Now what you ought to do about it is another matter. But I think at the very least, you should bring the matter up with him.

I wonder if Drane would have cited his source if it had been in print. Are writers reluctant to cite a web page because of a bias against that format? Do writers think that revealing their reliance on the web does not look as impressive as citing paper documents?

A moment's musings (not by an expert in source criticism, I'm more use of earlier Scripture, but that area is not unrelated).

I'm trying to envision scenarios that might explain this. Perhaps JD assembles notes for a lecture, using a few random sources and his own thoughts...loses track of the origins of some of the material, perhaps he is thinking, almost subconsciously, "just a website"...and then later the notes become the basis for a text. I know that I don't always have my notes well-sourced when giving an undergrad lecture; I try to mention scholars and sources, but I'm not 100 percent.

Additionally, some profs with posh positions have research assts who sometimes compile notes for them...

Mark - I think you are fortunate to be able to remember what you have written. Bayard, How to talk about books you have not read, notes many classes of 'not reading' including those books you have read and forgotten and forgotten you have read. Recently, my wife and I bought a book by P.D.James and discovered on reading it, that we had another copy and it was a remarkably familiar story. The excuse of forgetfulness in Drane's case is hardly supportable, especially if there were assistants doing research. It is important to say to those under tutelage that there are contemporary scholars that support this line of reasoning. I.e. this is not a straw man or inconsequential counter-argument to the generally accepted theories.

Personally speaking, in this day and age, I can scarcely imagine that someone should write about the synoptic problem without considering all the alternatives and naming the scholars who have done the homework.

I can't imagine any justification for this. Even by the most lenient standards regarding plagerism, Drane is out of line. I wouldn't allow my students to do this. Isn't the publisher responsible in some way?

As things unfold it will more difficult to personally bring this to his attention. But it needs to happen. Intellectual property needs to be respected - especially by those deriving income for their work which is clearly the work of others; which also gets the usual copyright annotation affixed by the publisher. Hopefully Drane will appreciate and acknowledge this at the earliest possible revision date.

It's an interesting question. I'm not quite sure how I would handle it, but then I only object to plagiarism of my stuff when it is done with the intention to injure me.

I think perhaps the key point to understanding this situation is that this is not something that has just happened. This took place 13 years ago, in a rather different world and on a rather different internet.

I was rather younger and more sanguine in those days. Possibly you were too; and likewise Mr Drane (who is unknown to me). How old were you all? At what stage of your careers?

Did Amazon exist, in 1999? Did e-commerce? This was an amateur world. It was a world that had not heard of copyright.

It was a world in which everyone copied stuff on the internet. Young scholars certainly did so. There was no real way to attribute online things formally in those days, and to say that you found something online was to label your material "flaky".

I think that what probably happened is that Mr D. found your work on the web, liked your theory, and decided to adopt it. But he had no means to reference it properly (would that be correct?), by the standards of those days, and he probably felt that he was helping you by putting your theory (I have not read what it is, since Q is not my thing) into circulation formally. No doubt he has long since forgotten all about it.

Unless you have some personal grudge against the guy (in which case you need no advice from me), I would write to him in a friendly way and let him know, and ask for a formal reference in future editions. It is, after all, a compliment to you. I would always assume good faith; when I do, I find that those who lack it always reveal themselves.

Note that I doubt your theory (or any scholarly idea) actually has any commercial value, sadly, and de minimis non curat lex. It is doubtful that you have suffered any quantifiable loss. So I wouldn't involve lawyers, unless you are very rich. As Auberon Waugh remarked once, "He who goes to law places himself in the hands of a ring of grinning rascals, who will run up bills as fast as they can, until someone has to pay."

This is blatant plagiarism, case closed. I am not speculating on Drane's motives, or whether he might have used notes and forgotten, it is still wrong. It has nothing to do with citing web sites. Most of use now include them, they are included in ALL the major style manuals, we teach our students how to cite sources. Even if it was not cited a simple note would have been nice: These points are taken from Mark Goodacre's web postings and I thank him.

It seems to undisputed, and indisputable, that Drane copied from Goodacre without attribution.

Those inclined to say Drane forgot where the material came from or wasn't told by an assistant where it came from or who would carve a a "web exception"/ "early-days web exception" or would accept other excuses need to ask themselves how they'd treat a student who turned in a paper entitled "Did Q Really Exist?" that read just as Drane's "bpx" does.

I mention this only partly in jest. It strikes me that there may have been an intermediate document from which Drane borrowed the information. The summary reads much like the kind of thing a graduate student may have borrowed from you and included in a paper written for a class, and Drane liked so much he incorporated into his text, perhaps with permission. I know, the positing of non-extant sources can be a wild-goose chase, especially to us Farrer theorists, but I wonder if he borrowed someone's summary of your work. I'd ask him.

Well, permission really doesn't factor into a plagiarism analysis. Attribution does. After all, people who purchase essays have permission to pass it off as one of their own, but it's still plagiarism.

I don’t often get involved in blog conversations, but as the person at the center of this storm I guess I need to on this occasion. And all I can say in answer to the question of where these summaries came from is that I haven’t a clue. Since they seem to go back something like fifteen years, my best guess is that I probably made notes on the back of the proverbial envelope at some conference or seminar, that then came to be included as a summary of one possible angle on this issue. In the nature of things, this sort of introductory text is going to be like a vacuum cleaner, sucking up all sorts of stuff in the effort to give a general overview of diverse opinions on things, with the emphasis on the diversity rather than on who says what. Right back to the first edition, this book (and its companions) has never had footnotes because it was never intended to be that sort of book, nor apart from historic trendsetters are any individuals generally mentioned by name in the text. Within the space and budget constraints the best that I could persuade the publishers to include was the booklist at the end – which is also far from comprehensive, even random.Overall, I doubt I’m half as sophisticated as Professor Goodacre imagines in terms of where sources have come from, how I’ve used them, who edited what and which words were changed, etc etc. However, I can see that he’s mightily pissed off here: you only make something an issue in a public space rather than sending a private email if you’re way over the top seriously angry about something, and that is obviously very regretful that I seem to have generated that level of controversy and aggro. So I’ll have no hesitation in apologizing for all that. If I’ve infringed some copyright or other, then we need to have that conversation in a different context though – and if I’m in the wrong over that, I’ll make amends there too (though in a book this big, if I’ve only made one error of judgment, I’ll be quite surprised – I probably just haven’t heard about the others yet).

I like both Goodacre and Drane's work. They are both quality scholars with many important publications. It will be interesting to see how they resolve the issues discussed here. I remember a friend once told me: most biblical scholars have big ego's. Maybe he was wrong. Let's wait and see....

John Drane wrote, "Right back to the first edition, this book (and its companions) has never had footnotes because it was never intended to be that sort of book, nor apart from historic trendsetters are any individuals generally mentioned by name in the text."

I'm not close to the issues, but I suspect that Mark Goodacre IS a historic trendsetter in the study of the synoptic problem. And if he is not a historic trendsetter, that might be because his work is not cited sufficiently in NT introductions! We need to avoid the "Matthew effect" in which only the famous are cited, thus enhancing their fame. It makes NT studies into a celebrity sport, such that attention is not drawn to the work of specialists.

I just wrote an essay for an Oxford Handbook and was surprised to read, in the Authors Guidelines, the following: "Keep in-text citations of secondary works to a minimum; readers will understand that as the author of the article you are summarizing the state of knowledge about your topic." It was quite a challenge not to cite the scholars whose work I was using; it went against my scholarly training and impulses. I don't have Drane's book in front of me, so I can't ascertain the pattern of his citations--if he does not tend to cite scholarship throughout, perhaps he was following the instructions of his press for an introductory volume (though this does not excuse the manner in which he directly borrowed language from Goodacre's site); but if he indeed cites other scholars throughout, then his offense seems more egregious.

Quite an interesting case study! A couple of points: a) I wouldn't see this as plagiarism, since the wording is not directly copied [I would regard it as inadequate attribution, perhaps exacerbated by early problems in using and referencing web pages]; b) while most of the parallels (between Goodacre and Drane) are inevitable in discussions of the question (and some of the points could be heard from people other than MG), there are a few things that suggest Goodacre influence (heading: 'new light' means it is about recent scholarship; sequence; occasional wording of incidental things, e.g. '... even a fragment of ...'); c) if the Drane book as a whole doesn't use notes or references to scholars (i.e. if it isn't really an academic book, but an introductory book) then he probably hasn't written it with a concern to give proper scholarly attribution to all the ideas (perhaps they might be considered common knowledge); d) I don't read Mark as 'angry' here. More interested in the phenomena (at both micro and macro levels); e) the simplest solution in my opinion would be to include a reference to Goodacre by name in general in the intro to this section (e.g.: 'some recent scholars (such as Mark Goodacre) have question the existence of Q ...').

One further note:apparently, Drane's intro text sells well, and IT GIVES THE CASE AGAINST Q PRETTY EXTENSIVE TREATMENT. Hooray for that--now, if only more stodgy old established NT scholars would see the light!

Many thanks for all these helpful and interesting comments. Just one or two quick remarks in response, with a slightly fuller response to Prof. Drane to come in a subsequent comment:

(1) Since several have asked, yes, I did send a polite and friendly email to Prof. Drane in which I drew attention to this blog post without making any accusations or implying bad faith, and expressing hope that I had got the tone right. I assume that it was my email that drew Prof. Drane's attention to the post.

(2) I think it is a good but not decisive point that the introduction overall is fairly minimal in its citations of the scholarship and its mentions of scholars and their views. What was surprising to me in this particular case was not that a case against Q had been set out without reference to me. That's fine and in many respects a very encouraging thing. What surprised me was that rather than seeing a digest / summary of the case set out as a means of introducing new students to some key points, there was instead a paraphrase of a web page.

(3) I agree that conventions for citing web resources have definitely tightened up over the last decade or so. However, to some extent, the much more limited use of the internet for scholarship back in 1999 is what surprised me about the use of my page in this context.

(4) I am grateful for the clarification of the issues provided by Stephen Carlson.

Many thanks for taking the time to comment on my post. I do appreciate the oddity of this coming up now, thirteen years after the book was published and I realize that this is only a couple of pages in a large book and that you don't recall how you wrote the section in question. Nevertheless, I don't fully understand the idea that it may have derived from notes on the back of an envelope during a conference or seminar, unless the person presenting was simply presenting what I said on that web page. It may be that I am not quite understanding what you are saying there.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was angry. I think I was more surprised than anything else. To repeat what I said in my email:

"Since the question is a little complex and is not easy to set out in detail in an email, I have taken the liberty of sketching out theparallels, as I see them, in my blog . . . I have asked a few questions, and I have tried to be as fair-minded as possible, and even at times a little light-hearted way. It is possible, however, that I have not got the tone right and if so, I apologize. Most importantly, I wanted to draw this to your attention so that I could give you the right of reply should you wish to take it. I would be more than happy to post your response to my blog post.

With thanks and my best wishes . . . etc"

Perhaps I did not make the right call in blogging about it, but I was not sure what to make of this and I thought it would be useful to set out the passages in question and to ask some questions, which seems fair to me. I think it is actually easier to be fair and balanced in an open blog post like this.

On the question of the degree of sophistication, I think that may be a question of the difference between the use of a source and the analysis of the use of a source. Without wishing to be unnecessarily disparaging, I was actually trying to suggest that the use of the web page was not especially sophisticated, not least given the examples of what I call fatigue. But I will also admit that my attempt at humour in the analysis here may not have seemed funny.

Just a couple of further comments here from me.First of all, the email to which Professor Goodacre refers was sent to an old email address that I no longer consult on anything like a regular basis - so my first encounter with this issue was here on the blog, and that certainly impacted the nature of my earlier response and my perception that he must be angry (if I myself first "outed" someone in public, it would certainly imply that I was way beyond just ordinary anger).And the other thing worth noting is that - for better or worse - this particular book only references individual scholars and their ideas through their inclusion in a booklist, and Professor Goodacre's 2001 book on the synoptics does indeed appear in that context (page 463). We could no doubt have a long discussion about the rights and wrongs of that way of referencing things, but in the context of a book of almost 500 pages that is one of the constraints that I have to live with (partly dictated by bindings and printing etc). This reality is made clear to all readers in the introductory sentence to the booklist, which says "The additional resources listed here do not provide anything like a comprehensive bibliography of the subjects covered in this book ..." (page 462).

Many thanks for your comments, John. I am sorry that you saw the piece on the blog before you received the email; that is unfortunate. The only email address that I could find was the Aberdeen one. I am pleased now, though, to be in contact.

On the question of references and the booklist, I am aware of the house-style and I mentioned that in the post. However, my questions are not about my not being mentioned by name, which is fine -- I am used to that in all practically all the NT intros! My questions rather are about whether the unacknowledged use of a web page is appropriate for an introductory textbook.

Thanks for adding my _Synoptic Problem_ intro to yourbibliography in the third edition. The piece that is derived from theweb page, however, appeared first in the second edition of your book, in 1999, before I wrote The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze in 2001. (Incidentally, the "ten reasons" do not appear in the 2001 book, which has a completely different structure from that web page). I have just noticed also that you added a reference to my NT Gateway website at the beginning of the bibliography in the third edition, for which also thanks (and I don't mind that you don't attribute the site to me!).

It is unfortunate that I missed out on meeting prof John Drane personally while studying in Durham, UK in 2008/9. One of his books that meant allot to me then was without a doubt Cultural Change and Biblical Faith (2000). Here is the very last paragraph: "For all over the world today, people whose ... relationships lie in pieces ... whose life conflicts seem to have no resolution - they are hearing Jesus' call to take up the cross and to follow him. And as the Spirit of God gets to work, the most remarkable angels are being released from the most unlikely of materials. Do you have the courage to come and join them?" (182).